2021 Irish Property Market chat - *mod warnings post 1*

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

They say it here:



They give two examples of types of temporary vacancies, one of which is properties waiting to be rented out!!!

Exactly they give an example, why there are difference from Census. No surprise in here. They don't have such classifications in their vacancy data, they never report on it. Its census classification, if someone filled not a long term vacant, but something else, it's normal to expect that is not a long term vacant, nobody knows that. It simply they evaluating Census numbers, nobody can tell about the individual properties what census report, so there is no way to check it.
What you expect, Geodirectory has all the information about properities, if it's for rent, if its for sale? You expect magic.

Graham

Mod Note

folks if you want another trip down the in-depth rabbit hole of geodirectory and/or vacancy rates either take it to private message or start a separate thread.

Do not reply to this post.

awec

DataDude wrote: »

I know consensus on here is that Foxrock is a terribly overrated place, but this is one of my favourite houses. Was up at €3.5m last summer - I think went Sale Agreed and then fell through, but not 100% sure.

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/hermitage-westminster-road-foxrock-dublin-18/4498801

Lovely gaff.

Great kitchen. Would recommend.

mcsean2163

DataDude wrote: »

I know consensus on here is that Foxrock is a terribly overrated place, but this is one of my favourite houses. Was up at €3.5m last summer - I think went Sale Agreed and then fell through, but not 100% sure.

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/hermitage-westminster-road-foxrock-dublin-18/4498801

4 million seems crazy for a 5 bed on half an acre. A lot of sellers may be left disappointed if the tide goes out. Their market is someone internet rich from an IPO or similar who doesn't care about money. IMO, anyone paying 4 million needs their head checked unless you they're absolutely filthy rich.

Cyrus

DataDude wrote: »

I know consensus on here is that Foxrock is a terribly overrated place, but this is one of my favourite houses. Was up at €3.5m last summer - I think went Sale Agreed and then fell through, but not 100% sure.

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/hermitage-westminster-road-foxrock-dublin-18/4498801

Have to agree I'd move to foxrock for that!

Cyrus

This is very close to us , walk past it most days

Fine site and house is better than I thought but unless developers want it it's hardly worth 2m?

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/kilkerry-dalkey-avenue-dalkey-co-dublin-a96-k523/4498710

combat14

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

https://www.ft.com/content/03620e72-b618-49eb-9d34-0f2a9ffef5f2

Very interesting article in the FT this morning on the commercial rental arrears problem simmering as they approach full reopening on 21 June and the eviction ban (which extends to commercial tenants, as in Ireland at least for most of the restrictions period) ends.

(extract)



We have the exact same problem here in Ireland; will the government step in to protect businesses? If so, how politically popular would it be for the State to pay commercial landlords? The alternative is to let businesses go to the wall which hurts the business, the landlords (empty properties) and the State who has to suffer the lost tax revenue and must sustain the employees permanently let go.

the commercial landlords wil have to take the hit this time .. its a no brainer the premises will be left empty otherwise and with so much business now going online they cant afford to take the risk of sitting with permanently empty buildings

PropQueries

For anyone interested in learning a bit more on the Maynooth, Mullen Park sale during the week, the SBP is covering it today:

“Round Hill Capital to put 135 houses at Mullen Park in Maynooth on rental market after deal believed to be worth €54 million...The developers of the Mullen Park estate in Maynooth in Co Kildare had been marketing new homes on the estate to private buyers since last year, with around 35 sold so far.“

However, there’s a more interesting article in The Sunday Times today on the Government’s c. 25 year lease agreements etc.

Apparently, the funds still aren’t 100% happy with these lease agreements and would prefer even better terms.

According to The Sunday Times:

“Institutions have been looking for a sort of hybrid of the standard and enhanced lease. They aren’t particularly interested in maintaining the properties and are happy to receive less rent if the local authority deals with that.”

But, the Housing Agency is on top of this very important issue:

“The Housing Agency is due to release updated versions of both lease templates. Jim Baneham, director of delivery at the agency, said the objective of the lease reviews is not to please investors but keep people in their homes long term”.

Link to article in The Sunday Times here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/digging-the-social-scene-kz8f0ljx6

Sweet.Science

PropQueries wrote: »

For anyone interested in learning a bit more on the Maynooth, Mullen Park sale during the week, the SBP is covering it today:

“Round Hill Capital to put 135 houses at Mullen Park in Maynooth on rental market after deal believed to be worth €54 million...The developers of the Mullen Park estate in Maynooth in Co Kildare had been marketing new homes on the estate to private buyers since last year, with around 35 sold so far.“

However, there’s a more interesting article in The Sunday Times today on the Government’s c. 25 year lease agreements etc.

Apparently, the funds still aren’t 100% happy with these lease agreements and would prefer even better terms.

According to The Sunday Times:

“Institutions have been looking for a sort of hybrid of the standard and enhanced lease. They aren’t particularly interested in maintaining the properties and are happy to receive less rent if the local authority deals with that.”

But, the Housing Agency is on top of this very important issue:

“The Housing Agency is due to release updated versions of both lease templates. Jim Baneham, director of delivery at the agency, said the objective of the lease reviews is not to please investors but keep people in their homes long term”.

Link to article in The Sunday Times here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/digging-the-social-scene-kz8f0ljx6

Not overly surprising . If rumour is to be believed the annual cost of maintaining council houses is greater than what is received in rent .

The cost of insuring these homes are huge aswel due to the number of claims received for household injuries so can see that becoming an issue aswel

PropQueries

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Not overly surprising . If rumour is to be believed the annual cost of maintaining council houses is greater than what is received in rent .

The cost of insuring these homes are huge aswel due to the number of claims received for household injuries so can see that becoming an issue aswel

From speaking to a few people who rent council houses over the years, the main problem appears to be the contractors the councils hire to undertake such repairs. In the cases I've heard of, the contractors appear to look down on the occupants and don't seem to take the works seriously and also appear to charge significantly more than market rates.

They also appear to do such a bad job initially that the council needs to send out multiple different contractors to complete the same works over and over again.

I think that may go some way towards explaining the "high cost" of maintaining council properties IMO

Not really the tenant's fault IMO

Ozark707

PropQueries wrote: »

For anyone interested in learning a bit more on the Maynooth, Mullen Park sale during the week, the SBP is covering it today:

“Round Hill Capital to put 135 houses at Mullen Park in Maynooth on rental market after deal believed to be worth €54 million...The developers of the Mullen Park estate in Maynooth in Co Kildare had been marketing new homes on the estate to private buyers since last year, with around 35 sold so far.“

However, there’s a more interesting article in The Sunday Times today on the Government’s c. 25 year lease agreements etc.

Apparently, the funds still aren’t 100% happy with these lease agreements and would prefer even better terms.

According to The Sunday Times:

“Institutions have been looking for a sort of hybrid of the standard and enhanced lease. They aren’t particularly interested in maintaining the properties and are happy to receive less rent if the local authority deals with that.”

But, the Housing Agency is on top of this very important issue:

“The Housing Agency is due to release updated versions of both lease templates. Jim Baneham, director of delivery at the agency, said the objective of the lease reviews is not to please investors but keep people in their homes long term”.

Link to article in The Sunday Times here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/digging-the-social-scene-kz8f0ljx6

Sunday Times article is quite illuminating as to the scale of the funds getting involved. I am sure the penny will drop any decade now...

Sweet.Science

PropQueries wrote: »

From speaking to a few people who rent council houses over the years, the main problem appears to be the contractors the councils hire to undertake such repairs. In the cases I've heard of, the contractors appear to look down on the occupants and don't seem to take the works seriously and also appear to charge significantly more than market rates.

They also appear to do such a bad job initially that the council needs to send out multiple different contractors to complete the same works over and over again.

I think that may go some way towards explaining the "high cost" of maintaining council properties IMO

Not really the tenant's fault IMO

That is also very true . Competent builders don't really want to deal with councils from what I heard . For a few different reasons . One being they don't pay in cash . Hence quoting above market rate for repairs

So some of the ones that do might not be the best

Amadan Dubh

Ozark707 wrote: »

Sunday Times article is quite illuminating as to the scale of the funds getting involved. I am sure the penny will drop any decade now...

It really kills any arguments against SF's housing policy which claim it is unaffordable as quite clearly there is a magic money tree for housing, as evidenced by FF/FG's housing policies! I just don't understand where it is coming from and going to continue to come from.

Sierra Oscar

The involvement of property funds in hoovering up whole estates and apartment complexes is going to cause some serious discontent towards the Government. It’s impact will be felt now more than ever given the precarious supply situation.

There’s a huge apartment development under construction in Cabra at the moment where all units are being sold to a private investment firm, 500 apartments. All on former state-owned CIÉ lands.

Cal4567

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Not overly surprising . If rumour is to be believed the annual cost of maintaining council houses is greater than what is received in rent .

The cost of insuring these homes are huge aswel due to the number of claims received for household injuries so can see that becoming an issue aswel

It's not a rumour. The rents charged by Councils which is based on tenant income, does not meet the long term maintenance costs. It's another one of the legacy issues that haven't been dealt with.

For many years, the State had one policy when it came to social housing. Sell it off to the tenants as quickly as possible. The long term maintenance of what remained was little more of an afterthought.

Now things have come with a bang. A sector that has largely been marginalised over decades is now centre stage and unfit and unable to deal with ever more pressing challenges. It beggars belief that some commentators, political as well as media voices, just expect local authorities to build again.

Not surprising the State has gone off to funds to get itself out of a whole although quite rightly many are questioning the long term viability of this.

Cal4567

PropQueries wrote: »

From speaking to a few people who rent council houses over the years, the main problem appears to be the contractors the councils hire to undertake such repairs. In the cases I've heard of, the contractors appear to look down on the occupants and don't seem to take the works seriously and also appear to charge significantly more than market rates.

They also appear to do such a bad job initially that the council needs to send out multiple different contractors to complete the same works over and over again.

I think that may go some way towards explaining the "high cost" of maintaining council properties IMO

Not really the tenant's fault IMO

That's a fairly correct analysis. The staff at the council look down on the tenants as well. The councils need to get more professional in this process.

Councils are like the HSE. Full of people who if they were in the private sector, they wouldn't be for long. Coupled with an archaic bureaucratic system (ask anyone who has ever had to deal with one on a professional basis) the shortcomings are obvious.

PropQueries

Cal4567 wrote: »

It's not a rumour. The rents charged by Councils which is based on tenant income, does not meet the long term maintenance costs. It's another one of the legacy issues that haven't been dealt with.

For many years, the State had one policy when it came to social housing. Sell it off to the tenants as quickly as possible. The long term maintenance of what remained was little more of an afterthought.

Now things have come with a bang. A sector that has largely been marginalised over decades is now centre stage and unfit and unable to deal with ever more pressing challenges. It beggars belief that some commentators, political as well as media voices, just expect local authorities to build again.

Not surprising the State has gone off to funds to get itself out of a whole although quite rightly many are questioning the long term viability of this.

I think the idea of selling council houses to the tenants is actually an extremely good policy as it gives them a real stake in their local community and benefits us all IMO

The real issue is why did the council stop building. It was hardly a lack of resources during the boom years. Even now, it’s not down to a lack of resources. If the money from that time didn’t go into building social housing or funding the state employees pensions, where did it go? And, it didn’t go into the bank bailout as that’s now down to a net cost of c. €20 billion while our national debt has ballooned to c. quarter of a trillion euro (excluding our unfunded pension liabilities).

I’d personally rather the state build council houses and give them directly to the prospective tenants instead of paying money (we don’t have) over 25 years to investment funds.

To head back to Herbert Hill in Dundrum where the council agreed rents of up to c. €3,000 per month over 25 years for the three-bed apartments.

At a 3.5% yield, that means the council valued those apartments at over c. €1 Million each and they don’t even own the apartments at the end of the lease.

Then look at Sisk Living designing and building council houses for South Dublin county council for c. €180k each back in 2018.

combat14

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The involvement of property funds in hoovering up whole estates and apartment complexes is going to cause some serious discontent towards the Government. It’s impact will be felt now more than ever given the precarious supply situation.

There’s a huge apartment development under construction in Cabra at the moment where all units are being sold to a private investment firm, 500 apartments. All on former state-owned CIÉ lands.

the government will be cremated at the next election by young (and at this stage not so young) voters if they dont sort housing .. people have enough of promises and bull**** schemes that actually continue to drive up prices .. older people dont realise what is coming .. they are not paying over half their wages in rent or nose bleed prices for houses .. they really dont get how pissed at this stage young voters are... and they will unfortuntately out of necessity vote anyone in who offer to solve the problem .. not the same two parties that have been in power the last 10+ years .. the greens will probably get some sort of kicking too for propping them up..

cnocbui

PropQueries wrote: »

I think the idea of selling council houses to the tenants is actually an extremely good policy as it gives them a real stake in their local community and benefits us all IMO...

I don't, it's an utterly apalling misuse of taxpayers money.

Hubertj

Cal4567 wrote: »

That's a fairly correct analysis. The staff at the council look down on the tenants as well. The councils need to get more professional in this process.

Councils are like the HSE. Full of people who if they were in the private sector, they wouldn't be for long. Coupled with an archaic bureaucratic system (ask anyone who has ever had to deal with one on a professional basis) the shortcomings are obvious.

That’s the main problem. A lot of people think that if SF get into power everything will be great with housing. Problem is you still have the same incompetent public servants charged with executing whatever plan or policy is in place. Quite simply, they aren’t up to the job.

Ozark707

Hubertj wrote: »

That’s the main problem. A lot of people think that if SF get into power everything will be great with housing. Problem is you still have the same incompetent public servants charged with executing whatever plan or policy is in place. Quite simply, they aren’t up to the job.

I know people who you would never have thought in a million years would they vote for SF but are now considering it. The ST article highlights in big bold lettering (for all who can be bothered to look) the incompetence at play now. I sent that link to a few acquaintances this morning and one has come back saying the reporter must have got it wrong....if only it were true. The problem is now only going to get worse.

yagan

cnocbui wrote: »

I don't, it's an utterly apalling misuse of taxpayers money.

And yet such investment gave the vast majority of this society a chance for social stability.

Even businesses need social stability.

enricoh

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The involvement of property funds in hoovering up whole estates and apartment complexes is going to cause some serious discontent towards the Government. It’s impact will be felt now more than ever given the precarious supply situation.

There’s a huge apartment development under construction in Cabra at the moment where all units are being sold to a private investment firm, 500 apartments. All on former state-owned CIÉ lands.

There's gonna be an awful amount of lads on sites + materials suppliers etc out of a job if these funds and charities do stop buying. It really is a balloon ready to pop at this stage.

PropQueries

yagan wrote: »

And yet such investment gave the vast majority of this society a chance for social stability.

Even businesses need social stability.

That’s true. Any many people don’t realise that many of the small farmers houses down the country were also built by the local council years ago.

yagan

PropQueries wrote: »

That’s true. Any many people don’t realise that many of the small farmers houses down the country were also built by the local council years ago.

People also forget that Fianna Fail got the same kind of abuse that SF get now, and now like then there was a huge demand for housing.

That investment then gave many security of tenure that was unheard of before.

PropQueries

enricoh wrote: »

There's gonna be an awful amount of lads on sites + materials suppliers etc out of a job if these funds and charities do stop buying. It really is a balloon ready to pop at this stage.

But if the funds and charities stop buying and the state starts building, we could build up to three times the number of units we’re currently building for the same money.

Three times more units means more construction workers and win win all round for jobs, economic growth, society, state finances etc. etc.

Cal4567

PropQueries wrote: »

I think the idea of selling council houses to the tenants is actually an extremely good policy as it gives them a real stake in their local community and benefits us all IMO

The real issue is why did the council stop building. It was hardly a lack of resources during the boom years. Even now, it’s not down to a lack of resources. If the money from that time didn’t go into building social housing or funding the state employees pensions, where did it go? And, it didn’t go into the bank bailout as that’s now down to a net cost of c. €20 billion while our national debt has ballooned to c. quarter of a trillion euro (excluding our unfunded pension liabilities).

I’d personally rather the state build council houses and give them directly to the prospective tenants instead of paying money (we don’t have) over 25 years to investment funds.

To head back to Herbert Hill in Dundrum where the council agreed rents of up to c. €3,000 per month over 25 years for the three-bed apartments.

At a 3.5% yield, that means the council valued those apartments at over c. €1 Million each and they don’t even own the apartments at the end of the lease.

Then look at Sisk Living designing and building council houses for South Dublin county council for c. €180k each back in 2018.

Yes, it is very good for the individual owner and then the mix that is theoretically left, when a social house is sold. However, what has happened in many cases, is that the new owner sells up at some point and in a lot of instances to another whose only interest is to let out the house. We then get back to an absentee landlord, perhaps doing a deal with the council to put in a HAP tenant. As we have seen now, we have the very same council buying back the house at full market value.

Selling off council housing is actually why we are in the problem we are in now. We don't have enough to go around. Across the UK and Europe, and we aren't much different, if we just sell it off, who gets the social housing in 10/15/20 years time?

yagan

Cal4567 wrote: »

Selling off council housing is actually why we are in the problem we are in now. We don't have enough to go around. Across the UK and Europe, and we aren't much different, if we just sell it off, who gets the social housing in 10/15/20 years time?

Well during the bertie bubble we allowed developers to evade the social housing element of their planning permission.

The conventional practice of those years was that the developer would build the private property element first, setting aside a corner of the site for social housing to be developed last, which in most cases never happened and once the bust happened they were forgotten about.

I think social housing was in theory meant to be 10% but in reality we ended up with something like 2%.

And even during that time many county council ran shared ownership schemes which diverted public money towards the private stock.

Sweet.Science

PropQueries wrote: »

But if the funds and charities stop buying and the state starts building, we could build up to three times the number of units we’re currently building for the same money.

Three times more units means more construction workers and win win all round for jobs, economic growth, society, state finances etc. etc.

Builders have no interest in building for the council for various reasons . Also local resident associations have way too much power in stopping housing . Especially in certain postcodes Even a SF TD stopped one this year

mcsean2163

Another estate sold to a REIT.

https://www.businesspost.ie/houses/global-property-investment-firm-buys-most-of-170-home-estate-in-kildare-783922ac?auth=login

Apparently population increased by 50k 2019-2020, meaning plenty more scope to rent at exorbitant rates. Not sure where this is all going or when the roundabout will stop